Hibbitt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 contains a freestanding requirement that proposed works constitute a conversion, not a rebuild or fresh build. The question is one of substance rather than form. Total demolition is not the only possible dividing line. The extent and nature of the works are relevant, although extensive works are not automatically excluded. The assessment must be made in the planning context, including the existing structure, the proposed works and the exclusion of new structural elements. The absence of a statutory definition does not make the concept uncertain or meaningless. Because Class Q grants automatic permission without a merits appraisal, it should not be construed so broadly as to permit marginal developments which properly require ordinary planning assessment.

The claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenged an Inspector’s dismissal of an appeal against Rushcliffe Borough Council’s refusal to grant prior approval for conversion of an open-sided agricultural barn into a dwelling under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

The Inspector accepted that the barn was an agricultural building and that its frame could bear the proposed loading. She nevertheless concluded that constructing all four exterior walls and carrying out the other proposed works would amount to rebuilding rather than conversion. The central issue was whether Class Q imposed a separate conversion limit and whether the Inspector had misdirected herself in applying it.

1. Claim dismissed. The Inspector had not misdirected herself and her analysis was legally correct.
2. Class Q contains a freestanding threshold requirement that the development must amount to a conversion. That requirement is distinct from the conditions and limitations in Q.1. It is therefore insufficient merely to show that the starting structure is an agricultural building, that it can bear the proposed loading, and that the works are reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling.
3. Conversion and rebuilding are conceptually distinct. The boundary is determined by substance, not by an artificial bright line at total demolition. A structure may qualify as an agricultural building yet be so skeletal that the proposed works amount in practical reality to a fresh build. The extent of the works is relevant but not determinative.
4. The term conversion need not be formally defined. It must be understood in its planning context by professional decision-makers. A dictionary definition cannot be applied without regard to that context. The guidance in paragraph 105 of the NPPG cannot bind the court, although it is relevant to interpretation and supports the conclusion that new structural elements are outside the intended scope of Class Q.
5. The automatic nature of Class Q permission also supported a conservative construction. It was intended for clear-cut permitted development and should not become a means of avoiding the fuller planning assessment applicable to marginal rural development. The reference in paragraph 55 of the NPPF to avoiding isolated homes in the countryside provided relevant policy context.
6. The consultation response cited in the judgment was informative but not a formal guide to interpretation. The decision did not depend upon it.

First-instance judicial review claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judgment does not state any subsequent appellate stage.